Page values for "GL v Elysium Healthcare (2020) UKUT 308 (AAC)"

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetime2020-12-03 11:19:12 AM
_modificationDateDatetime2021-10-08 11:54:43 AM
_creatorStringJonathan
_fullTextSearchtext{{Case |Date=2020/11/09 |NCN=[2020] UKUT 308 (AAC) |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Kate Marcus |Parties=GL, Elysium Healthcare, Secretary of State for Justice |Sentence=Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing |Summary=It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceed ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |2020 cases Cases Judgment available on Bailii Judgment available on MHLO Other Tribunal cases Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function Transcript Upper Tribunal decisions Judgment_available_on_Bailii 2020_cases
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringGL v Elysium Healthcare (2020) UKUT 308 (AAC)
_pageIDInteger11,223
_pageNamePageGL v Elysium Healthcare (2020) UKUT 308 (AAC)
_pageTitleString

GL v Elysium Healthcare [2020] UKUT 308 (AAC)

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Cases" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
SentenceWikitext

Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing

SummaryWikitext

It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day.

DetailText==Thanks== Thanks to Karen Wolton (Wolton & Co Solicitors) for providing the judgment.
SubjectList of String, delimiter: ,Other Tribunal cases Upper Tribunal decisions
Judicial_historyWikitext
Judicial_history_first_pagePage
DateDate2020-11-09
JudgesList of String, delimiter: ,Kate Marcus
PartiesList of String, delimiter: ,GL Elysium Healthcare Secretary of State for Justice
CourtStringUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
NCNString[2020] UKUT 308 (AAC)
MHLRString
ICLRString
ICLR_IDString
EssexString
Essex_issueString
Essex_pageString
Other_citationsList of String, delimiter: ,
CitesList of String, delimiter: #
External_linksText* [https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/gl-v-1-elysium-healthcare-hospital-2-secretary-of-state-for-justice-hm-2020-ukut-308-aac Judgment on Gov.uk website]. Published on 8/12/20 with the following summary: "The First-tier Tribunal erred in proceeding with a hearing in the patient’s absence, where he refused to attend because he was concerned that his flatmate could overhear him participating in a telephone hearing."
JudgmentFile
(2020) UKUT 308 (AAC).pdf

"Contributors" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
NameStringWolton, Karen
PlaceStringWolton & Co Solicitors
ContributionStringproviding the judgment

"News" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
Which_tableStringCases
RSS_titleWikitext
RSS_descriptionWikitext
RSS_pubdateDatetime2020-12-03 10:57:51 AM